Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
1 Ph.D Student, Public Law, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Public Law, University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Introduction
The concept of public rights is commonly understood as the rights of the general public. However, when scrutinized more closely, this notion becomes somewhat ambiguous, leading to questions and disagreements among legal doctrines and jurists. This ambiguity revolves around the precise definition of the term, its instances, and its scope, such as whether it pertains solely to criminal law or extends to non-criminal law. Examining the scope of public rights reveals numerous and sometimes conflicting interpretations. Legal and judicial opinions on the scope of public rights generally fall into two general yet conflicting approaches, namely narrow and broad. Given the divergent viewpoints, it is crucial to adopt a valid interpretive approach within the legal system to establish a systematic framework aimed at reaching an understanding. Objective consequentialism, as a normative-based interpretive method, serves as a valuable theoretical tool for evaluating these approaches. In this line, the present study sought to address the following research question: Which of the two approaches, narrow or broad, to the scope of public rights is deemed acceptable from the perspective of objective consequentialism?
Literature Review
Legal and judicial opinions concerning public rights can generally be categorized into two competing approaches. On one hand, there are viewpoints advocating for a narrow interpretation, which suggests limiting the scope of public rights in times of uncertainty. On the other hand, there are perspectives that advocate for a broader understanding of public rights, incorporating a wider range of interpretations and instances. Although there is no coherent and methodical discussion on this matter in legal literature thus far, various schools of legal interpretation have debated different methods, such as objective consequentialism. In objective consequentialism, the focus lies on discerning the purpose of the law, so the interpreter, whether a judge or a lawyer, seeks to deduce the purpose of the law from the text itself and other relevant sources. Subsequently, they interpret provisions of the law in light of the general purpose. In this method, justification for interpretation is grounded on the objective purpose behind establishing the rule. The purpose of the law can be inferred from the very text of the law, including its title, preamble, or relevant chapters. Furthermore, the purpose may be predestined or assumed, with implications being inferred through logical or judicious readings of the text of the law—based on the premise that the legislator is judicious. Therefore, it is assumed that the legislator has intended for legal provisions to have meaningful effects rather than being rendered null or futile. Objective consequentialism seeks to uncover the underlying purpose behind a given law or provision.
Materials and Methods
The present study relied on objective consequentialism, which is an interpretive method based on the normative ground, in order to evaluate the two approaches concerning the scope of pubic rights. The study aimed to address the following research question: Which of the two approaches, narrow or broad, to the scope of public rights is deemed acceptable from the perspective of objective consequentialism?
Results and Discussion
According to objective consequentialism, fostering a broad understanding of the concept of public rights while maintaining a systematic view of functions of the judiciary body can result in an appropriately balanced understanding aimed at claiming public rights. The present study synthesized the opinions sharing a common essence and overarching direction, discussing the existing legal approaches regarding the scope of public rights. Additionally, considering the principles of the Constitution, a hypothesis (called the conceptual approach derived from purposiveness) was formulated and tested about the distinction between the scope of public rights—as outlined in the Constitution—and the restoration of public rights. The scope of public rights can be either narrowed or expanded, considering the purpose of the law and of justice outlined in each instance, as well as the implications derived from a judicious interpretation of the law.
Conclusion
Public rights can be re-evaluated with an eye to the purpose of the law, hence interpreted as rights and interests arising from the objective goal of the law. In this light, the scope of public rights becomes meaningful considering the purpose of the law, the justice it guarantees in each instance, and the implications stemming from the judicious interpretation of the law. Therefore, there two central points here: rights (the conceptual standpoint) and the negation of oppression and injustice (the functional standpoint). From the conceptual standpoint, public rights extend to legal rights. Yet the functional standpoint would include those instances of rights that have been or are about to be unjustly taken away from their rightful owners, making it impossible for the beneficiaries (whether individuals or groups) to reclaim them.
Keywords
Main Subjects
Books
- Bani Yaghub, Javad, Glossary of Legal, Economic and Administrative Terms (Tehran: Jungle, 1388).
- Public and International Law Research Institute, Speeches about the Institution of Prosecution and the Restoration of Public Rights (Tehran: Judiciary Research Institute, 1397).
- A Group of Writers, Constitution Law of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Tehran: Reflection of Justice, 1400).
- A Group of Writers, Outline of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Volume 2 (Tehran: Guardian Council Research Institute, 1400).
- Javan Arasteh, Hosein, Constitution Law of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 2th Edition (Qom: Darolhadith, 1399).
- Hamidi, Fahimehsadat, Glossary of Legal Terms, 2th Edition (Tehran: Academic Jihad, 1394).
- Khaleghi, Ali, Criminal Procedure, Volume 2, 30th Edition (Tehran: Shahre Danesh, 1395).
- Dehkhoda, Ali Akbar, Middle Dicitionary of Dehkhoda, First Edition (Tehran: Tehran University, 1385).
- Annotated Form of the Deliberations of the Assembly for the Final Review of the Constitution, Volume 1- 3 (Tehran: General Department of Public and Cultural Relations of the Islamic Parliament, 1364).
- Tabatabai Moatameni, Manouchehr, Administrative Law, 17th Edition (Tehran: Samt, 1390).
- Abasi, Bizhan and others, Citizenship Rights; From the Rights of the Nation to the Restoration of Public Rights, First Edition (Tehran: Publications of the Ministry of Justice, 1398).
- Amid Zanjani, Abasali & Ebrahim Mousazadeh, Encyclopedia of Political Jurisprudence, Volume 2, First Edition (Tehran: Tehran University, 1389).
- Amid Zanjani, Abasali, Political Jurisprudence, Volume 1, 3th Edition (Tehran: Amir Kabir, 1377).
- Katouzian, Naser, Introduction to the Science of Law, 15th Edition (Tehran: Bahman, 1371).
- Karimi Zanjani, Hosein, Judicial Culture, 2th Edition (Tehran: Negahe Bayyeneh, 1389).
- Langaroudi, Mohammad Jafar, Legal Terminology, 6th Edition (Tehran: Ganje Danesh, 1372).
- ________________________, Intermediate in Legal Terminology, 5th Edition (Tehran: Ganje Danesh, 1392).
- Matin Daftari, Ahmad, Civil and Commercial Procedure, 4th Edition (Tehran: Majd, 1391).
- Mohseni, Farid, Constitutional Law of Islamic Republic of Iran, First Edition (Tehran: Imam Sadegh University, 1395).
- Mohagheghe Damad, Mostafa, The Rules of Jurisprudence, Volume 1, 12th Edition (Tehran: Islamic Sciences Publishing Center, 1372).
- Deputy of Research, Education and Citizenship Rights, Legal Dictionary, 3th Editioin (Tehran: Deputy for Compiling, Revising and Publishing laws and Regulations, 1391).
- Moin, Mohammad, Persian Dictionary (Middle), Volume 1, 23th Edition (Tehran: Amirkabir, 1385).
- Montazeri, Hoseinali, Jurisprudential Foundations of Islamic Government, Volune 8 (Tehran: Sarai, 1379).
- Noghrehkar, Mohammad Saleh, The Role of the Prosecutor in Protecting Public Rights (Tehran: Jungle, 1388).
- Hashemi, Mohammad, Constitutional law of Islamic Republic of Iran, 2th Edition (Tehran: Mizan, 1394).
- Vaezi, Ahmad, An Introduction on Hermeneutics, First Edition (Tehran: Publishing Organization of Islamic Culture and Thought Research Institute, 1381).
- Yazdi, Mohammad, Constitutional Law for All (Tehran: Amir Kabir, 1375).
Articles
- Borzui, Mohsen and Vaezi, Mojtaba, “Judiciary and Challenges Related to Individual Rights and Freedoms”, Quarterly Journal of Excellence in Law, No. 4, (1399).
- Public and International Law Research Institute, Report of the Meeting on the Concept and Legal System Governing the Way the Judiciary Performs its Duty in the Restoration of Public Rights, Judiciary Research Institute, (1396).
- _______________________________________, Judicial Protection Meeting from Article 24 of the Constitution (Freedom of the Press and Media), Judiciary Research Institute, (1396).
- Tangestani, Mohammad Qasim, Report on the Concept and Legal System Governing the way the Judiciary Performs its Duties in the Restoration of Public Rights, Judiciary Research Institute, First Edition, (1398).
- Amid Zanjani, Abbas Ali & Mohammad Ali Mohammadi, “Sources and Basics of Public Law in Islam”, Legal Thoughts, No. 11, (1385).
- Khalaf Rezaei, Hossein, “Approaches to the Interpretation of the Constitution; Looking at the Views of the Guardian Council”, Knowledge Quarterly of Public Law, No. 7, (1393).
- Debirnia, Alireza, “The Place of Development Program Laws in the Constitution of Iran; Planning in Line with the Duties of the Judiciary”, Judiciary Law, No. 106, (1398).
- Ghamami, Mahdi, “The Pattern of Revitalization of Common Law with Changes in the System of Norms and Judicial Structures”, Journal of Islamic Law, Research Institute of Islamic Culture and Thought, No. 58, (1397).
- Saber, Mahmoud and Others, “Designing a Conceptual Model of the Pathology of Article 114 of the Criminal Procedure Law”, Judiciary Law, No. 113, (1400).
- Qutbi, Milad & Bahadori, Ali, “Limitations of Freedom in the Principles of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran”, Islamic Human Rights Studies, No. 10, (1395).
- Kazemi, Ali, “Obstacles and Challenges of Drafting the Bill to Protect Citizen Rights in Iran”, Judiciary Legal Journal, No. 58, (1386).
- Mansourian, Nasser Ali & Adel Shibani, “The Concept of Public Interest and its Place in Iran's Legislation”, Perspectives on Judicial Law, No. 75 and 76, (1395).
- Hashemi, Mohammad, “Protections and Guarantees of Human Rights in Domestic Law and the International System”, Legal Research, No. 38, (1382).
- Hadavand, Mehdi, Draft Report of the Rublic Rights Restoration Bill, Tehran, (1399).
Thesis
- Pourhosni Meybodi, Ehsan, Functioning of the Judiciary in the Field of Revitalization of Public Law, Thesis in Public Law, Shahid Beheshti University, (1389).
- Khoshnoisan, Mohsen, Judiciary Competencies in the Opinions of the Guardian Council, Thesis in Public Law, University of Tehran, (1394).
- Faqih Larijani, Farhang, Treatise on Objectivist Legal Hermeneutics and the Theory of Interpretation of the Constitution (with Emphasis on the Interpretative Votes of the Guardian Council), Ph.D Thesis, Shahid Beheshti University, (1392).
- Mazaheri, Gholamhasan, Dissertation on the Analysis and Study of the Interpretation Approachs of the Guardian Council in the Light of the Theories and Principles of the Interpretation of the Constitution, Ph.D Thesis Shahid Beheshti University, (1390).
)